> That's not a real risk, not compared to, you know unlocking the secrets of human genetics.
So, it's you who gets to play god and decide to sacrifice individuals for the alleged greater good?
Unfortunately, GWAS data is unlikely to unlock the secrets of human genetics. We have been in the "post-GWAS era" of genetics for at least a few years now.
> And it's not that big a deal. We will be much better off for it.
I hope you are right! However, I have doubts. Also, just because sensitive information can be compromised doesn't mean that it should be offered freely.
Yes, so? (The face paper you link isn't a good example of this anyway, since it's so questionable and re-identification already works much better than that based on stuff like haplotypes.) That's not a real risk, not compared to, you know unlocking the secrets of human genetics. And it has little to do with the research databases: DNA is inherently as far away as it is possible to get from being anonymous, once it started becoming cheap, the loss of genetic privacy was inevitable no matter how it was handled. And it's not that big a deal. We will be much better off for it.
> Replicated p-values lead to multiple publications, which are valuable to academics.
This is very different from what you were just claiming.